Non-motoring > Crown Prosecution Service - numpties Legal Questions
Thread Author: Dulwich Estate Replies: 7
View Threaded 

New Wed 29 Jan 14 17:03 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Dulwich Estate
CPS backs charges against men who took cake from supermarket bin

It's good to see that the CPS have their priorities right and are making sure that crime is "properly" dealt with. Make sure you get the real criminals ... eh!

The supermarket that had the food taken from its outside bin didn't even know about it until they heard of the police case.

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cps-backs-perverse-charges-against-men-who-took-cake-from-supermarket-bin-9093782.html
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 17:04
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 17:10 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Mapmaker
Hmm.

What's the betting that the people who nicked it are well known to the police, and that they were delighted to be able to prosecute them for something.


I've now read the article. "The three men, who live together in a squat in north London...[skip several paragraphs]... have been charged with being found in or upon enclosed premises, contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824."


That's a section that they love to use against squatters if they're found in the garden of a property they are squatting.

Good use of police and CPS time if you ask me.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 17:59 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Bromptonaut
Guardian reports prosecution as being dropped and quite right too.

If they were simply 'skip diving' either for financial reasons or to make a political point about supermarket waste then no real offence.

If they were known and nicked for 'something' then unless harm being done it looks like police acting as law unto themselves - bad.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 18:17 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Dulwich Estate
CPS quote from Guardian:

Explaining the decision to drop the case on Wednesday afternoon, Ubhey of the CPS said: "In reconsidering this case, we have had particular regard to the seriousness of the alleged offence and the level of harm done. Both of these factors weigh against a prosecution. Additionally, further representations received today from Iceland Foods have affected our assessment of the public interest in prosecuting.

"We hope this demonstrates our willingness to review decisions and take appropriate and swift action when necessary. The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to bringing the right charges to court when – and only when – it is proper to do so."


So they originally wanted to prosecute and only withdrew after the press got on to it.

Who on earth do we employ in CPS ? Why make the decision in the first place ? As I said before, it makes you feel good and so, so safe knowing that the police and CPS have our true interests at heart.
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 18:18
Reply to this message | Report message
      1  
New Wed 29 Jan 14 18:34 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Mapmaker
>>If they were known and nicked for 'something' then unless harm being done it looks like
>>police acting as law unto themselves - bad.

I think it's called "using discretion", Brompton. They were committing a crime. There was evidence. It was an easy hit (or would have been...)
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 18:49 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Westpig
>> If they were known and nicked for 'something' then unless harm being done it looks
>> like police acting as law unto themselves - bad.
>>

Not in my eyes it isn't.

If people are consistently up to no good, then you'd want your police force keeping them on their toes...wouldn't you?

We used to stop known burglars and go right through their cars for something, anything...if it was a tyre or no insurance etc (endorsable/penalty points) then all the better, you'd eventually get them banned...and try to slow them down a bit that way...or nick them for disqual.

Worst case scenario they'd get the odd fine from a ticket. Good use of resources in my book, when you bear in mind how few of them cause so much criminal mayhem.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 29 Jan 14 at 18:49
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 18:56 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Zero

>>
>> Worst case scenario they'd get the odd fine from a ticket. Good use of resources
>> in my book, when you bear in mind how few of them cause so much
>> criminal mayhem.

Yes thats fine, but isn't the CPS supposed to look at each case on its merits? Not sure they accept "we know these scalleys are up to no good but can't hit them with anything better" do they?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 29 Jan 14 19:12 
 Crown Prosecution Service - numpties - Westpig
>> Yes thats fine, but isn't the CPS supposed to look at each case on its
>> merits? Not sure they accept "we know these scalleys are up to no good but
>> can't hit them with anything better" do they?
>>

You are right...it's just my response to our recently retired lefty civil servant who doesn't seem to agree with the Old Bill hitting them with whatever they can.

The Vagrancy Act versus the Theft Act smacks of, 'hit them with something'. You'd usually have a victim statement from the loser for a theft case, only Iceland say they knew nothing.

If they were otherwise blameless citizens, then the whole thing was fairly heavy handed..if they were not..then it's likely to be 'get them with what you can'..which I 100% support.

..and as an aside one of the main reason why 'cautions' are dished out for more serious cases..it's better than nothing and the defence don't always know what you don't know.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts